Separating the Mandela Effect From Memory

a reply to: Profusion



And your BTTF reference is bunk too. Vans in the 80s had logos that didn't have the defining gap when produced, not to mention aftermarket emblems made that were easier to.produce without the noticeable gap.

Next batter please.....

originally posted by: Krakatoa
a reply to: Profusion

Fine, I provided EACH of those types of evidence to you, as well as a logical reason for the discrepancy. I see now no matter how much you are provided, you will ignore all input that does not meet your internally accepted narrative. So, I bid you well. I certainly hope you survive this mental conundrum you seem to be having here... I mean that.

Safe travels. This will be my last post on this topic forever.

how on Earth did this op wind up advertised on facebook? really? the author just acted like a child and obviously can't even begin to defend his idiotic theory so what makes this post so incredible it needs advertising?

a reply to: bottleslingguy

What? Advertised on facebook? Where?

The man in the following video discusses some of the issues that were discussed in this thread.

Mandela Effect - Speaking to the Skeptics - If you build it they will come


www.youtube.com...

Here's another video that belongs in this thread (with more evidence that separates the Mendela Effect from memory):

The Mandela Effect ("Luke, I Am Your Father") Please Vote #6


www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: bottleslingguy
the author just acted like a child and obviously can't even begin to defend his idiotic theory so what makes this post so incredible it needs advertising?

If pictures and videos can be declared to not be evidence, then presenting sound arguments, logic, and mathematics can be called '[acting] like a child.'

originally posted by: In4ormant
And your BTTF reference is bunk too. Vans in the 80s had logos that didn't have the defining gap when produced, not to mention aftermarket emblems made that were easier to.produce without the noticeable gap.

Next batter please.....

Do you have a source for that claim? I don't think you've tried to 'debunk' the VW video in the original post of this thread. I don't recall you trying to 'debunk' the "reality residue" video on the first page or the Google search video on the second page.

a reply to: Profusion

Once again, it was never, "Luke I am your Father" [LIAYF] - it was always, always "No, I am your father" [NIAYF].

The reason you, and the many other incorrect people think LIAYF is correct was/is due to mass media. It was and still is, widely used in films, media, adverts, pop culture, etc. BUT... the quote, NIAYF is too contextually tied to the moment in the film to be useful outside of the film. Luke is telling Vader what happened to his father (ie: describing how obi wan said vader killed his father) to which, Vader replies, that was in correct [No], but rather he is his father [I am your father].

That quote isnt usable WITHOUT luke being present or his name being made mentioned along with it.

So.... the media changed the quote to suit their narrative -- NIAYF became LIAYF which was given context - Luke's name.

Now the pop culture could connect with and it was meaningful.

THAT is why you think it was always LIAYF when it was always NIAYF.

Honestly - you Mandela nutjobs really need to do genuine analysis and not pull Youtube videos as "evidence".

a reply to: Profusion

From the script itself.

LUKE
I'll never join you!

VADER
If you only knew the power of the
dark side. Obi-Wan never told
you what happened to your father.

LUKE
He told me enough! It was you
who killed him.

VADER
No. I am your father.

Shocked, Luke looks at Vader in utter disbelief.

LUKE
No. No. That's not true!
That's impossible!

a reply to: In4ormant

If the movie is different than you'd expect the script to be different too.

originally posted by: noonebutme
The reason you, and the many other incorrect people think LIAYF is correct was/is due to mass media. It was and still is, widely used in films, media, adverts, pop culture, etc.

That's an unprovable, unfalsifiable assumption.

There are other possibilities than "alternative realities" and your explanation (which is definitely possible).

Here are some other possibilities:

1. There could be copies of the film out there that were censored in different ways. For instance, some governments edit things from films in order to allow them to be shown in their countries. It's conceivable that the word "No" could have been changed to "Luke."

2. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitle translations. Someone who's going by the subtitles only (not being able to understand the English) could understand "No" as "Luke."

3. There could be copies of the film out there with bad overdubbings in other languages. The word "No" may have been dubbed as "Luke."

4. George Lucas may have been up to his old tricks with editing. He could conceivably have edited some copies secretly.

5. There could be copies of the film out there with bad subtitles in English. Hearing impaired people could be reading "Luke" when it should read "No."

There are five more theories (outside of the alternate reality theory) that are also possible.

Your theory may be probable but nothing is definite here.

a reply to: In4ormant

Now for your Field of Dreams junk.

"The character didn't build the ball field to make money. In the first few scenes it's established that he has a strained relationship with his father. So at first, the audience is lead to believe that "if you build it, he will come" was advice being given in order to reunite Kevin Costner's character with his father.

But then the "he" who shows up is Shoeless Joe Jackson, his father's favorite baseball player. It's Jackson who then invites other ball players to come out.

The main character is never concerned with any "they." "They" don't even show up until a while after the field has been built."


Just because YOU don't understand the context doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

If the movie is different than you'd expect the script to be different too.

I'd say that all the written and spoken proof is far more credible. The "I remember it differently" argument is moronic. Your memory? Really?

a reply to: Profusion

Now your Jaws reference.

Gottlieb recalls: "[Richard] Zanuck and [David] Brown were very stingy producers, so everyone kept telling them, 'You're gonna need a bigger boat.' It became a catchphrase for anytime anything went wrong — if lunch was late or the swells were rocking the camera, someone would say, 'You're gonna need a bigger boat.'"

Roy Scheider, who played Brody in the movie, ad-libbed the line at different points in his performance throughout filming. But the one reading that made it in to the final cut of the movie was after the suspenseful first look at the great white shark. Says Gottlieb, "It was so appropriate and so real and it came at the right moment, thanks to Verna Field's editing."

www.hollywoodreporter.com...


Again, you don't understand the context so you assume.

Got anymore? This is fun

a reply to: In4ormant

I'd say that all the written and spoken proof is far more credible

That was not my point, my point is that it is not surprising that the script says the same as the movie......

The "I remember it differently" argument is moronic.

No need to get emotional.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

I'd say that all the written and spoken proof is far more credible

That was not my point, my point is that it is not surprising that the script says the same as the movie......

The "I remember it differently" argument is moronic.

No need to get emotional.

I'm not emotional in the least. I'm having fun with this

a reply to: In4ormant

You mean endorfines are released in your brain when you are sticking it to the morons with your "debunks"? I know, it's what drives most of you.

originally posted by: CollidinParticules
a reply to: In4ormant

You mean endorfines are released in your brain when you are sticking it to the morons with your "debunks"? I know, it's what drives most of you.

It's endorphins.
Or is it.........
Maybe you found another one

a reply to: In4ormant

No, just bleeding over from my own language.

originally posted by: Profusion
That's an unprovable, unfalsifiable assumption.

No worse that your ridiculous Mandela theory.

But at least mine IS provable -- I remember it from a child and remember it now. Its the same in scripts, dvds, tapes, blurays, LDs, etc -- no difference.

You are the one who is wrong and has a bad memory.

a reply to: noonebutme

But at least mine IS provable

You mean this,

The reason you, and the many other incorrect people think LIAYF is correct was/is due to mass media. It was and still is, widely used in films, media, adverts, pop culture, etc.

No, this is an assumption that you can't prove. You can't prove that this is the reason why people think that.

I could also say that mass media, films, adverts, pop culture etc use LIAYF because it used to be like that and that's how it is remembered. Why didn't they use NIAYF?

a reply to: CollidinParticules

They didn't use only NIAYF as it has no context outside of the film. Seeing it on tshirts, mugs and pens you could associate it with Jeremy Kyle, Jerry Springer or anything similar. Having LIAYF makes more sense out of context.

ETA: You can buy real merchandise with NIAYF, LIAYF and just IAYF (plus all the silly ones).

a reply to: TerryDon79

I never saw such a t-shirt mug or pen or reference in the first place. I remember LIAYF from watching the movie hundreds of times.